Free Solo and Economic Growth
johnhcochrane.blogspot.com
johnhcochrane.blogspot.com
Much of that technology looks old, but isn't: ropes have been around a while, but modern climbing ropes stretch so as to drastically lower the peak forces on your protection. For example. Modern climbing exists in large part because we developed technology that lets you try to climb hard high stuff without dying.
Now, you could also get good just by bouldering, staying close to the ground. But that's not how actual existing climbing developed: bouldering grew out of crag climbing, which grew out of mountaineering. It's a little silly to wonder why people weren't very good at a game we just invented, before we invented it.
Another point. We don't actually know how good the best climbers were throughout history. There's a clear upward trajectory to 19th-century British mountaineering and its descendants. But how good were the best Incan climbers in 1350?
Even through the early 19th century climbers were much better than given credit for, part of this is also how grading shifts over time. I've experienced this first hand, climbed some old "HVS" routes (fairly easy grade) established in early 19th century in wales (UK), only to find them in the low extremes by modern standards, maybe E2/3 (no this wasn't mere sandbaging), on top of which they were using heavy gear, unsafe gear and mountain boots!
I have much respect for forgotten pioneers of climbing, they were much tougher than they appeared on the face of their accomplishments.
We all have little jokes in climbing when conditions make routes harder like rain, cold, dirt, birds whatever, "oh this bird shit turns it into a VS / E12 today".. it's silly, but when applied generally, it's true - every aspect that is different can make the same climb significantly harder or easier for others, those pioneers probably were climbing E9 for them.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/07/honey-hu...
As a climber this hurt me a bit to read. They're not boots, they're shoes John!
Also I'm glad that the movie is successful, and that the sport of climbing is getting mainstream attention, but personally I'm more impressed by the accomplishment of Tommy Caldwell and Kevin Jorgeson in free-climbing the dawn wall with protection. In my mind that is a better representation of the highest level of achievement within the sport. Climbing without protection has more to do with being a daredevil than a climber, and while I understand why it's so impressive, I am conflicted about this particular achievement being celebrated and potentially emulated.
Pedantry aside, the article makes some interesting points.
I think it's important to recognise that there are many different ways to get up a piece of rock, these are a choice in "style", and each style has different challenges, different qualities etc. No one style is better than another, they are a personal choice, and this is part of what makes the sport so great... if you want to invent a new style, you can, it can be completely made up and personalized and obscure, perhaps it is even a one time thing, climb route x in slippers on christmas. People only argue about the validity of the most common styles, but they often forget they are only a style.
What gets me about free solo climbing is the sheer level of risk involved. Even for the best in the world, there are too many variables which simply can't be controlled in a climb like that, which is evidenced by the high rate of death for free-solo climbers.
I fully support anyone's right to decide to take on that risk if they are fully informed of it. Personally it would not sit well with my morals to risk my life in such a way over a completely optional, self-serving activity given the emotional and material cost my death would bring to the people who care about me.
Moreover, I have qualms about such pure risk being an avenue for fame and fortune.
"Personal" is indeed the key word, and people usually bring up the subject of family and loved ones... These are my thoughts on that: Our lives are finite, crossing the road incurs a certain level of risk of death, so it's much safer to stay at home and live as a prisoner your entire life. Any family demanding a loved one stay at home their entire life would be considered selfish.
Here's the thing: for some people, climbing, or even free soling is not an event to post on facebook, not a means to an end, not about fame... climbing is the other side of the road, it IS the end not the means, it is their destiny, to climb, not to "have climbed", it's what makes them happy and is why they can accept the risk.
What amount of risk is an aceptible trade for what style is entirely personal, not selfish.
Years ago a friend of mine took a massive fall free soloing. He survived but was badly injured. I couldn't believe how many lectures he got from people who barely knew him, telling him how irresponsible he was. This is a guy who is a climbing fanatic, who had already had more amazing life experiences in his early 20s than most people do in their entire life.
It took a few years, but my friend eventually healed up enough to get back to serious climbing and has been back at it ever since. Would his life be better if he spent it all grinding out a safe but boring office job like most of his critics? I don't think so, but apparently many people disagree.
Honnold made an interesting point in his latest (?) appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast: none of the top free solo climbers has died on a hard free solo climb (and many didn't die free solo climbing, or even climbing, at all).
And of course lots of people die climbing with ropes and protection too, even highly skilled and experience climbers.
Most people would probably consider any significant climb to be 'too risky'. As I disagree, I don't think I can reasonably fault anyone else for choosing some other higher level of risk as being 'too risky'.
Also I don’t find it very compelling if climbers tend to die on easier free solo climbs rather than harder ones. I don’t really care what the grade was on a climb if it kills me.
there really aren't many that have died, maybe a couple dozen, so not much stat to draw info from. BUT they aren't always on the hardest routes, so the law of averages would dictate that they die on "average" difficulty routes.
You shouldn't climb at all then. People die just scrambling too. Even hiking can be dangerous.
Do you wear a helmet when you drive a car? That might actually be sensible. It's probably just too 'weird' for almost anyone to seriously consider.
> Likewise, nobody in 1958 had any idea that you could hang by your thumbs and fingers to exploit little pieces of rock. This knowledge, demonstrated in the movie, emerged from the community of rock climbers and boulderers over time.
John Gill was sending V9 Boulder problems in 1958, in tennis shoes! He was off in his own little world and climbing way beyond the standards of the greater climbing community at the time.
Gill is regarded as the father of modern bouldering. He began as a gymnast and adapted modern training techniques from gymnastics to bouldering. He never had much interest in roped climbing or long routes, he was all about doing the hardest possible moves on stone.
"rock boots" is a perfectly fine name for climbing shoes. I think "climbing boots" is just fine
This is a rock boot (usually called mountain boot) https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f7/fb/96/f7fb9693adc35876240a... and this is a rock shoe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PRxN-KNqLs#t=127s
That said, I'm not sure I'd rank one over the other. Both feats are incredibly impressive, albeit for different reasons.
Take just a single aspect of the gear - climbing rope, modern rope is a technological wonder, light, super strong and extremely dynamic, it's part of what makes it possible to push yourself to the limit and repeatedly fall off routes safely, with zero injury. After a certain point you cannot improve in climbing without pushing beyond your limits and failing, modern technology allows you to push further and further and survive and retain your skills, and this is a significant part of why the pure climbing skill of climbers today is so advanced.
The author has made the same observation but ignoring climbing technology and focusing on internet etc for spread of knowledge - but there are many skills that do not survive conceptualization and communication in tact, for those, you need specialist technology to advance your learning beyond the basics.
Go back 80 years, you will find weak, heavy hemp rope, rope harnesses that will probably kill you, and people literally carried rocks as gear, shoving them in cracks with the rope behind them. It's not hard to see how limiting this is in learning the skill, as you move forward in time gear becomes more advanced but still very heavy.
Even using gear from 30-40 years ago, it is possible to climb with relative safety, the new gear is mainly only an incremental improvement in safety.
That's not to say that I would happily take a fall on older equipment, just that the main element of danger is generally not the equipment but the surrounding environment.
Sure 30 to 40 years ago (1980-1990) the equipment was good, and thats about when the explosion in free climbing ability really got going. The first 5.13 (Alex's Free Solo route Freerider has a 13a pitch) was done in 77 and the first 5.14 in 85. [1] Not coincidentally, the modern cam came into use in the late 70s. [2] Good climbing shoes came in the 80s too. Sport climbing, the use of bolts (technology) to safely climb faces that weren't previously protectable also started in the early 80s. So of course you wouldn't mind climbing on 30-40 year old climbing technology.
Normal gear has been pretty stable since then and the limits of the sport have continued to grow, but that doesnt mean its not because of technology. The boom we are in now has been due to another bit of technology, the indoor climbing gym. They started in earnest in the 90s and have allowed a new level of training.
[1] https://web.stanford.edu/~clint/yos/hard.htm
[2] https://www.climbing.com/news/10-things-you-didnt-know-about...
But I guess you mean what kind of falls am I taking on dynamic rope that I wouldn't want to take on static rope? Its not about distance, its about fall factor [1]. Fall factor 2 falls are possible on multi pitch routes. Doing that on a static rope would really screw you up even if it didn't kill you. It could also easily shock load your anchor gear enough to break or pull it out, killing you and your belayer.
[1] https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/skills/fall_factors_expl...
Yes, but isn't that also roughly when modern sport climbing started?
Nylon ropes for climbing were introduced about 55y ago, though, I don't know when they became wide spread. Same for modern harness, modern bolts and quick draws. So your ~40y ago might be roughly correct.
Modern sport climbing started, I would argue, around that time. For instance, Red Pointing was popularized in the 70ties [2].
Also interesting is, that Phoenix, the first 7c+, the grade of the route in the Free Solo movie, was climbed in 1977 [3,4] and first free soloed in 2011 (also by Honold).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernmantle_rope [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpoint_(climbing) [3] https://www.emontana.cz/climbing-milestones-from-6a-to-9c/
Getting to a specific point on the face of El Cap used to be a weeks-long endeavor in itself, pushing everyone to their physical and technological limits. The fact that he was able to go for day-trips to any point on the wall to practice is a testament to all the technology involved.
He used modern ropes, hauling gear, etc, to essentially turn the route into a gym that he could practice on. He used modern climbing holds to re-create the dyno problem so he could practice at home. He literally memorized the entire sequence of moves.
It would be impossible to learn a route to the level that it requires to ascend it in 4 hours without modern technology. Imagine if practicing the dyno problem required having to fund and set up a 47 day expedition to reach it.
Regardless, the 80s was the inception of most modern climbing gear sure; but the intermediate years were not only refinements but improvements through the culture assimilating that gear to the point of maximum utility - much the same could be said about personal computing, although the technological advances are larger, much of the advances are cultural, learning how to best utilise it.
The gym is, itself, a technology that has pushed the envelope on climbing. When I was learning in the 90s there was no gym where I was and if I wanted to practice I had to climb buildings. It's much easier now to find good places to work out climbing technique without traveling to the cliff.
Using gear from, say, 45 years ago you would have mainly hexes, tricams, and nuts. Would you climb as hard then?
The author is largely trying to sell exceptionalism. That everything will be fine with generic improvements. Yet, of course that isn't true. Both state of technology and the economy is probably better than ever yet deliver less and less value. Chances are people like Alex Honnold did it despite of the policies of this economist.
> And now, the technology of the internet. Each new idea in rock climbing is accessible quickly all over the world. Without that large group of interested people, this communal knowledge would not have advanced so far. [The Article]
> After a year, he dropped out of Berkeley and spent time living at home and driving around California to go climbing. "I'd wound up with my mom's old minivan, and that was my base," he said. "I'd use it to drive to Joshua Tree to climb or I'd drive to LA to see my girlfriend. My orbit was tiny and really cheap. I destroyed that van fairly quickly; it died on me one day, and for the next year I lived just on my bicycle and in a tent." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Honnold
On second thought I think you are correct, it should detract. And it's important my example only be seen within the context of the entire climbing culture, not as an alternative to the authors causal choice. Many things, individual pieces of technology, social environment and cultural inertia have brought the culture to where it is today - it cannot be attributed to any single thing or event.
I think there is something about human psychology that makes people commonly gravitate towards this type of thinking, like in a myth or fairytale... some sensitive dependence, a key event that changed it all! or a single piece of technology to change it all etc etc. It makes for exciting stories and makes it easy to explain things (wrongly), but it's rarely the truth.
Chronology and narrative are definitely natural ways that humans frame the world - one of the many instinctive faults in our cognition. Such a simple view of the “infinite now” is easily hijacked in marketing, politics, etc.
I don't think the author intended the piece to be "an explanation" so much as an observation. I think that is fine, and there isn't much point in generalizing this observation a human tendency towards sloppy thinking.
The invention of the sampler created a huge amount of value. But mainly by a handful of companies and music scenes. If you wasn't for Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, London, Bristol or wherever else the change would have been marginal. Just like climbing wouldn't necessarily improve without places like Yosemite.
You can even go further and say that it isn't just specific groups that make progress, but that they define progress itself. There isn't much as such saying that free soloing in Yosemite is what progress is. Or even that climbing is worth progressing.
There also can't be many who believe that technology haven't made e.g. trains significantly better in past decades. Yet, China now have much more advanced trains than the US which is arguably better at technology. That is presumably because China is building boats rather than praising the tide.
Only if Alex has never used a modern climbing rope in his life is my point invalid (I know he has). It's also important to understand that many of other pieces of climbing technology help in learning and developing the skill for everyone, not a single one, ropes are just an example.
Alex couldn't have been birthed 100 years ago and climbed El Cap. The route he used still needed to be established by others. Alex climbed that already-established routes dozens of times before committing to not use all the tech the author thinks he doesn't need. The rehearsal was key. If there's a takeaway from him, it's: "practice".
The route also had to be modified to allow anyone to climb it free - I'm talking about modifying the rock itself. 100 years ago, the climb would have been different. Not hugely so, but one key handhold present that was there before could have made all the difference.
The happened in the first free ascent of the Nose too - an entire pitch was chipped in an attempt to free it, by a different person. They failed, but the route, once chipped, cannot be healed.
Alex has also climbed that same route, in a comparable style, in under two hours.
Alex Honnold has not freed the nose with or without a rope. His nose speed record partner, Tommy Caldwell, is one of only a handful of people who have.
Lynn Hill's first free ascent of The Nose was a monumental achievement, for a woman or a man.
It's confusing because The Nose describes both the feature on El Cap, and the route that takes the plum line up that feature. Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
That's why I said, "in a comparable style". The FA was done on aid, as was Alex's speed ascent with Tommy.
But not completely comparable. The FA had to establish anchors, drill in bolts, figure out the route. More standing on the shoulders of giants, than anything I think.
Then, it's just optimization.
Honnold's Free Solo of the Nose was on a route called Freerider.
I think the confusion may be your own? The Nose is well, The Nose. Honnold climbed a route off to the side on a feature called (initially) the Salathe Wall.
> Paul M. Romer: Lecture in Economic Sciences 2018 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZmgZGIZtiM
> Nobel Page: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/rom...
We don’t know where we want to go; We are infinitely greed; We are infinitely incompetent;
We can use the example of the rope. There was many technological progress in the last decades to manufacture good gear for climbing, but as time goes by we will need to spend much more resources in research to get less and less improvements on the rope. There will be a time were the climber needs are fulfilled and we could just spare the nature (ex: the mountains that they like to climb) and enjoy what we have accomplished.
1. The psychology of fear and how we can learn to overcome fear. I think there is a lot to say about the tantalising experience of facing death.
2. The evolutionary nature of a discipline. Some disciplines improve with technology, others with knowledge.
I really love technical sports and am inspired by the amount of sharing in the communities. It is also easy to see in the newer sports how much progress has been made.
It's exciting seeing how far we can push ourselves through what we previously thought was difficult/impossible and redefine the frontiers of the sport
If you haven't seen Free Solo (because you're not interested in climbing, or whatever) it's still worth a watch.
https://www.redbull.com/int-en/tv/show/AP-1MD65N6X92111/reel...
The first is how the rise in indoor rock gyms in turn gave rise to youth leagues and competition. This has created a huge leap forward in the skills of elite climbers because many today (the "gym rat" generation) have been climbing only slightly less longer than they've been walking.
The second is how the funding of outdoor adventure/exploration has evolved through the last couple of centuries, from securing precious resources (though mountaineering never had much of that), to a sort of angel/philanthropic model (geographic societies and alpine clubs), to government backed nationalism, to the current gear branding and sponsorship that is fueled by social media. This current model drives a huge amount of activity in outdoor endeavors that have helped create the crowd sourced effect he's talking about.
Now with social media driven by the internet, the sponsorship model has enabled people with a passion to be able to sustain a living pursuing that hobby. Independent of the knowledge transfer, deeper knowledge is being created from more people being able to devote their lives to the hobby.
Here's an article about FreeSolo's earnings from sponsorship: https://www.wealthsimple.com/en-us/magazine/money-diary-alex...
This is a major component of software's power – it's a tool for formalizing knowledge and skills permanently and distributing it rapidly at ~0 marginal cost. If a piece of software is both correct and performant, it can last a very, very long time, possibly outliving its creators. And the best software composes, so one program can build on top of another to build up a massive skillset.
Prior to YouTube, learning proper form really required you to probably take lessons and live/breath/be super friendly with some really good climbers as a necessity. Now, you can watch a number of good climbers online on having proper technique to get 70% there.
For example this video demonstrates how climbing crimps (a specific type of hold) requires more than just finger strength: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws06PjI4FTU
Stuff like this was nearly impossible to convey by book. If you want to learn how to be a better swimmer for example because you didn't take up swimming until you were in your 20s, it was very difficult. I did this as an adult, and each private lesson with an instructor to improve my form was $100 in recession dollars. Now, you can gather so much online and iron out the wrinkles with live instruction.
Disclaimer: the video linked above is my friend's YouTube channel.
But past that, so much depends on subtle weight shifts and tailoring moves to ones specific body; it's hard to learn that stuff outside of just trying hard moves yourself and making small adjustments.
See this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Why-Information-Grows-Evolution-Econo...
The author of this book not only thinks about the economy in terms of knowledge but he relates it to information theory and entropy.
Also disappointing read. What about comparing climbers to day traders or investors that take economic risks that often have very real consequences in other people’s lives.
A couple of years ago, I read Medieval Technology and Social Change, by Lynn White (https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Technology-Social-Change-Whi...) as recommended by PG. Technically a textbook, it was a dry and drab look at the history of various innovations during Midlevel times - the stirrup, the windmill, etc. The 30,000ft view is that when innovations are introduced it takes a long time both for them to spread and for someone to finally exploit them to their greatest contributive state. While the steam engine was not invented until 1712, all of the components had been available since Roman times. It took quite a long time to find one of the greatest uses of those innovations. At least, it used to take a long time -
Now, information and innovation spread much faster. Society moves much faster. The innovation of the stirrup took a thousands years to propagate. The innovation of the internet took less than 50 years; Smartphones took 5. The pace of global change is increasing exponentially. A modern entrepreneur must have line of sight to the latest innovations in order to anticipate their impact on his or her society, industry, business, and personal well being. No one wanted to be the new Nokia, Borders Books, or Woolworths.
But, let's take a step back from specific innovations, and look at global mega-shifts in society. From the agricultural revolution, to the various metal ages, through the industrial revolution we are now being lapped by the waves of the Information Age.
As humans we quickly absorb each individual change brought forth in the information age - email, cellular connections, the world wide web, the smart phone, etc. Can you imagine running your business without your iPhone? We very quickly adapt to the here and now and forget the way it was (Thank you evolution!). However, what we are not good at perceiving is the systematic, second-order changes that the Information Age will bring. The Agricultural Age brought these changes over thousands of years. The Industrial Age brought them over generations. The Information Age will bring them with alarming speed that we may not be prepared for:
* Retailer's monopoly on local distribution was destroyed by Amazon.com + UPS
* Newspapers have been shattered by the internet's ability to breakdown their stranglehold on the distribution of information.
* The telecom world was turned upside down by the introduction of the cell phones, the internet, and the disruption of their monopoly on land-lines (Note that AT&T is a mere brand name, which was purchased on the cheap by SBC).
* The traditional media world felt this shock earlier this year when a man with a twitter account was able to upend their distribution monopoly on the news and they were left reacting and pandering instead of dictating.
But these are a number of examples in the commercial world. What about society itself? What about the global financial systems? What about governments?
Note: this was part of a letter I sent out with a Christmas gift a few years ago. Full letter here: https://blog.jacob.vi/the-sovereign-individual/